Text Size


Tag » Mach's Principle

On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:23 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" wrote:

For those of you who are trying to figure out what Jack and Paul are arguing about, sometimes on this list again, the basic issue, put simply, is whether gravitational fields are present in spatially flat spacetimes.  Jack says no.  That non-vanishing spatial curvature must be present if gravity is present.

JS: Jim is muddling my position.

1) Real gravity fields must have curvature.

2) Artificial gravity fields exist without curvature.

3) Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP) is: imagine you are inside an elevator with no windows.

Situation A: Elevator is standing still on surface of Earth. The reaction force (radially inward) of your body down on the scale is your weight

W = (your inertia in kg)10 meters per sec^2

Your inertia is

m = E/c^2

E is your total energy in Joules

c = 3 x 10^8 meters/sec^2

In Einstein's GR you have an upward net non-zero off-geodesic proper tensor acceleration (radially outward) g = DV/dt = 10 meters per sec^2 in order to stand still (hovering static LNIF) in the Earth's curvature field. Your world line is not a geodesic of the Earth's curvature field.

V = 0 and dV/dt = 0 in the hovering static LNIF

g = - {LNIF}V0^2 = + GMEarthr/r^3 radially outward

The action-reaction pair of electrical contact forces of Newton's third law is LOCAL having no astrological magic influence from the distant stars. It is caused by local U1 electromagnetic gauge invariance + quantum field theory.


dP/dt = 0 P = total charge momentum + EM field momentum

= mV + (e/c)A

From quantum field theory, the local U1 gauge transformation is simply mostly the exchange of a near field spacelike virtual photon between the charge e of inertia m and the EM field A coincident with the charge.

The dominating Feynman diagram is >---|

> = electron world line

--- = virtual spacelike photon world line

| = Glauber macro-quantum coherent state of virtual photons order parameter describing the near field A

A is exactly like the Bose-Einstein condensate reservoir in superfluid helium it is also analogous to the Higgs vacuum field - these are all examples of spontaneous broken continuous symmetry groups of the dynamical action.

note subject of my PhD was "Local Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superfluids" 1969 UCR

Formally the internal symmetry local U1 gauge transformation is

mV -> mV' = mV + hGradS

S = quantum phase of the charge's information BIT field.

A -> A' = A - (hc/e)GradS

Therefore, the total canonical momentum P of the Hamiltonian for minimal QED coupling is GAUGE INVARIANT

P -> P' = mV + hGradS + (e/c)A - hGradS = P

dP/dt = 0

The formal U1 internal symmetry local gauge transformation actually describes the transfer of a virtual photon from the classical near EM field to the charge and vice versa! It's a quantum field virtual dynamical process in space-time and it obviously implements Newton's 3rd Law that the total momentum of the system of interest is LOCALLY CONSERVED.

Change in momentum of charge + change in momentum of near field = 0

The radially outward real force pushing the charge off a timelike geodesic is

F = hGradS/&t

The radially inward real reaction force of the charge back on the source of the near field A is

- F = -hGradS/&t

this radially inward reaction force causes the pointer of the scale to show weight.

&E&t < h for virtual photon (Heisenberg uncertainty principle)

Situation B: the elevator is properly accelerating at 10 meters per sec^2 in any direction in flat empty spacetime.

The observer inside the elevator cannot tell whether he is out in empty space or sitting still on surface of Earth.

We assume of course that he has no windows and no tidal curvature measuring capability.

Therefore, subject to these conditions one cannot distinguish artificial non-tidal gravity defined as the Levi-Civita connection from the non-tidal gravity field associated with tidal curvature.

JW: Paul says yes.  That spatially flat spacetime does not preclude the presence of gravity.  That Paul is right should be obvious from the fact that general relativity is predicated on the assumption that in sufficiently small regions of spacetime, the Minkowski metric (spatially flat) applies.

JS: Jim, you have totally muddled two different meanings of the ambiguous term "gravitational field". Also you are dead wrong. You have made a very elementary error.

Your "the Minkowski metric (spatially flat) applies"

The Minkowski metric is flat in the 4D sense, not only in the 3D sense.

Your argument here is a non sequitur

"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies." wiki

JW: It is also the boundary condition in the Schwartschild solution of Einstein's equations.

JS: Schwarzschild, also it's another non sequitur red herring.

JW:  And in critical cosmic matter density cosmologies, spatial flatness obtains in the presence of black hole horizon strength gravity.  The problem for Jack (and other "modernists") is that if you allow that, the WMAP results give back Mach's principle as a simple prediction of general relativity.  

JS: I challenge you to give a mathematical model that WMAP proves Mach's Principle.
You do not need Mach to have k = 0 in the FRW metric.

JW: Do not expect closure on this any time soon.  :-)

The issue before me is how to address them properly in my Stargate book and in my reviews of his book. I will take several weeks pondering this. I will not make Jim's theory a central part of my book as I have plenty of original material myself.

On Oct 20, 2013, at 12:20 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:


The continuation of last night's comments.  Jack and Paul, by the way, have repaired to a shorter list to continue their mathematical discussions.  As far as I am concerned, this process has been like tapping a kaleidoscope.  I've known about Einstein's predilection for Mach's ideas since reading John David North's history of cosmology back in the '60s.  
60's - paleolithic times in cosmology and in general relativity. See Feynman's letter to his wife at Warsaw GR meeting - it's online.

And with every pass, I learn a bit more -- though a bit less with each pass, at least recently.

As I said yesterday, much of the confusion [leaving aside the silliness about "fictitious" forces] in this business seems to be an outgrowth of the now allegedly mainstream view that gravity is only present when non-vanishing spacetime curvature is present -- a view that seems to have its origins in a neo-Newtonian view that large constant potentials can be gauged away as irrelevant.  This comports with the widespread view that the Aharanov-Bohm experiment notwithstanding, potentials in classical situations are not real.  Only the fields derived from them are.
Jim's writing about fictitious forces in his book is hardly intelligible to me. 
Jim also seems to be confused about "potentials"
There are superficial formal analogies between Einstein's geometrodynamics and Maxwell's electrodynamics, but one must be very careful in applying them.
Jim cites Bohm-Aharonov. OK first look at Maxwell's electrodynamics. I use Cartan's forms
We have a potential 1-form A that is a connection for parallel transport of objects in the U1 circle fiber space.
The gauge transformations are
A --> A' = A + df
f = 0-form scalar
d^2 = 0
It's line integrals of A around closed loops that give the observable quantum phase shifts in the Bohm-Aharonov effect via Stoke's theorem etc.
The EM curvature is the 2-form
F = dA which is gauge invariant
F' = dA' = dA + d^2f = dA = F
Maxwell's field equations concern the 3-forms
dF = d^2A = 0  these are two of Maxwell's equations - no magnetic monopoles and Faradays EMF law (motors, generators ....)
d*F = *J   these are the last two - Ampere's law with displacement current and Gauss's law
* = Hodge dual
d*J = d^2*F = 0
is local conservation of electric current densities
this is a 4-form in 4D spacetime dual to a 0-form.
This gauge theory extends to the non-Abelian unitary groups SU2 and SU3 that describe the weak and strong forces (Yang-Mills).
Jim's vector theory if done correctly has
g00 = 1 + phi/c^2
g0i = Ai
However, the analogy to EM as a gauge theory breaks down completely, because the F to Jim's A is the Levi-Civita connection.
In fact the proper analogy is that the Levi-Civita connection is the analog to the EM A and the curvature tensor is the analog to EM's F.
Conservation of currents is the Bianchi identity in GR.
However, to make the analogy more transparent. General relativity as a local gauge theory is a non-Abelian Yang-Mills theory based on the Poincare symmetry group of Einstein's special relativity.
Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity mathematically is the representation theory of the global 10-parameter Poincare group.
General relativity is properly named because it is a limiting case (zero torsion) of the local gauge theory of the Poincare group with the real gravity field as the curvature 2-form from the connection 1-form just as in Maxwell's electrodynamics.
However, the connection 1-form corresponding to Maxwell's A is not the Levi-Civita connection from the usual 1916 GR tensor formulation, rather it is the six spin connection 1-forms AIJ  = - AJI with two LIF indices, IJ analogous to the internal indices Aa in Yang-Mills theory of the SU2 and SU3 internal groups and the 4 tetrad connection 1-forms eI.
There are therefore 10 connection 1-forms one for each "charge" generator of the Poincare group (linear-momentum-energy, rotational momentum, Lorentz boosts)
The Levi-Civita connection is derivable from the spin connections and the tetrads.
The four eI are the base 1-forms for a geodesic LIF dual to the tangent vector fiber space basis.
The spin connection allows coupling of gravity to spinors, the Levi-Civita connection does not.
Therefore, Einstein's 1916 geometrodynamics reformulated in modern Cartan-forms has the local gauge structure
D = d + SIJ/   Cartan exterior covariant derivative
summation convention over repeated indices - I am too lazy to put in the ^ for upper indices.
TI = DeI = deI + SIJ/eI = dislocation defect torsion field 2-form
RIJ = DSIJ = dSIJ + SIK/SKJ = disclination defect curvature field 2-form.
Einstein's 1916 theory requires the ad-hoc constraint
TI = 0
In that limit:
Einstein-Hilbert action density is the 0-form scalar without cosmological constant for simplicity
with Euler-Lagrange equation for vacuum is the 1-form equation
*(eI/RJL) = 0
in ordinary tensor language this is
Ruv - (1/2)guv = 0
Including the matter-field sources gives
*(eI/RJK) = (8piG/c^4)*(TIJK)
More details are in Rovelli's lectures http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf
This may be true for all other physical fields.  But it is not true for gravity.  The vector part of the gravitational potential very definitely does depend on the particular value of the scalar potential calculated.  There are some formal technical details that complicate this a bit.  But the idea that you can ignore cosmic scale matter currents when computing local gravitational effects is still just wrong.
I find above comment by Jim unintelligible - at least at the present time.

Tonight, what I want to do, however, is talk a bit about a couple of other matters.  The first is the "origin" of inertia.  You may recall that Jack gave a long list of mechanisms -- the Higgs process, QCD calculations, and suchlike -- that allegedly are the origin of mass, and thus inertia.  The fact of the matter is that none of these processes (valid in and of themselves) account for the origin of mass and inertia.  Frank Wilczek, after telling you about these processes in his book The Lightness of Being, allows as much (on pages 200 through 202).
I am staring at those pages and I see nothing in Wilzcek's text that justifies Jim's extraordinary claim above. Certainly nothing that needs Mach's principle that simply replaces one mystery with another. Again Jim is confounding two different meanings of "inertia" just as he and other confound two different meanings of "gravity field".
Mach's Principle only is concerned with how matter affects disclination geodesic deviation (aka curvature). The real gravity field of Einstein's geometrodynamics is the field of "geodesic deviation" corresponding to inhomogeneities in Newton's "gravity field", which is a fictitious force field.
Mach's principle is not concerned with the origin of rest masses of elementary particles. Einstein briefly confounded the two, but it led nowhere.  Wilzcek is concerned in those pages 200 - 202 with the cosmic landscape/Anthropic principle issue. Why these particular numbers and not others. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html
A word on history. What Einstein may or may not have said in 1907 in his informal language as he groped toward GR is completely irrelevant to the modern understanding of general relativity. This is a normal evolution of all good physical theories. I have no patience with cranks that try to make a big deal over that. Such discussions are a waste of time for me.

Inertia is a universal property of stuff.  And the only universal interaction that couples stuff is gravity.  It is thus obvious that if gravity produces inertial forces (that is, the relativity of inertia obtains), that gravity should have a lot to do with the origin of inertia.  (The origin of inertia was the title of Sciama's first paper on this I note.  So I'm not making this up.)
Jim's remark above is unintelligible to me. This is what I mean by "inertial force."
inertial force   (-nûrshl)
An apparent force that appears to affect bodies within a non-inertial frame, but is absent from the point of view of an inertial frame. Centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces, both observed in rotating systems, are inertial forces. Inertial forces are proportional to the body's mass. See also General Relativity.
Newton's gravity force per unit test mass -GMr/r^3 is an inertial force in exactly the same way as centrifugal and Coriolis forces are.
They are all part of the Levi-Civita connection which vanishes at the origin of a Local Inertial Frame (LIF).
The "force of gravity" you feel as weight on Earth is the unbalanced electrical force pushing you off a timelike geodesic of the local curvature real gravity field mostly due to the mass of Earth. You need that unbalanced force on you to keep you still (with respect to Earth) in the curved spacetime we live in. Earth pushes up on you and you push down on Earth etc. - action-reaction Newton's 3rd law.
Therefore, I find Jim's discussion of inertial forces here and in his book unintelligible and not mainstream.

This is more obvious still when you discover that phi = c^2 is the condition that must be satisfied for inertial forces to be due to gravity.  You don't even have to fudge with dimensions to get this to work.  
I also find "phi = c^2" unintelligible and not mainstream physics.

The dimension of phi is velocity squared.  You may not like this result.  Jack it seems doesn't.  But it is a simple consequence of GRT.  You might think that this means that should the rest of the matter in the universe be made to disappear (or should you screen an object from the gravity of all that matter) the mass of an object would go to zero -- as is assumed in a number of discussions of Mach's principle and the origin of inertia.  But that's not what happens.  Read chapters 7 and 8.
Unintelligible to me still as of this date.

The last thing I want to comment on is, how the devil did all this get so bolixed up?  Recent kaleidoscope tapping suggests that there were two crucial mistakes that are largely responsible for all the confusion.  The first mistake was made by Einstein in 1921.  By that time, he had been worked over by Willem deSitter and disabused of his naive Machianism (which is why he started talking about spacetime as an "ether" about this time).  So the claims he put into his Princeton lectures on Mach's principle were more tentative than they had been previously.  One of the things he calculated that he took to be in accord with Mach's ideas was the effect of "spectator" matter (that is, nearby stuff) on the mass of an object.  He claimed that piling up spectator matter would cause the mass of the object in question to increase (because of its changed gravitational potential energy).  A very small amount.  But if the origin of mass is the gravitational influence of cosmic matter, this is just the sort of effect you might expect to see.

It turns out that Einstein was wrong about this.  That's what Carl Brans showed in 1962 (as part of his doctoral work at Princeton with Bob Dicke).  The EP simply forbids the localization of gravitational potential energy.  So, the inference that GRT is explicitly non-Machian regarding inertia and its origin is perfectly reasonable.  It's the inference that Brans and Dicke -- and everyone else for that matter -- took away.  Brans and Dicke, to remedy this presumed defect of GRT, resuscitated Pasqual Jordan's scalar-tensor version of gravity, hoping the scalar field part could bring in Machian ideas.

The second crucial mistake is the inference everyone made that Brans' EP argument meant that Mach's principle isn't contained in GRT.  Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case.  Brans' conclusion from the EP is absolutely necessary for Mach's principle to be contained in GRT.  It is the conclusion that must be true if inertial reaction forces are always to satisfy Newton's third law, for it guarantees that phi = c^2 ALWAYS when measured locally.  But everyone had adopted the false inference that GRT is non-Machian.  It's no wonder that issues of Mach's principle in GRT has been so confused.  It's no wonder that C+W (really Wheeler I'd guess, for he witnessed the Mach wars of the '50s and '60s) tried to use Lynden-Bell's initial data and constraint equations approach to implement Einstein's parting shot at Mach's principle in the '20s.  The origin of inertia is just too important to let go with the sort of "explanations" now floating around.
Unintelligible. EEP follows trivially once one understands that Newton's gravity force is simply the fictitious force on the weightless geodesic test particle as seen visually in a static LNIF from real electrical forces pushing the static LNIF off a local timelike geodesic.

On a personal note, I've known that phi = c^2 (locally) is the condition to get all of the Mach stuff to work since around 1992.  But I was focused on inertial forces and how they might be transiently manipulated.  And doing experiments.  I won't tell you how long it took for the other aspect of the origin of inertia to sink in -- even though it was staring me in the face. . . .

Keep the faith,
Sorry Jim but the faith required here is not scientific in my opinion.



Sent from my iPad

On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, jack <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

"Einstein continues by pointing out how things fare better in GR:

By the way, physical space possesses reality according to the general theory of relativity, too, but not an independent one; for its properties are completely determined by matter. Space is incorporated into the causal nexus without playing a one-sided role in the causal chain.

The second half of the first sentence is also striking, as Einstein had previously recognised that Mach’s principle only holds for certain solutions of the Einstein field equations, not for all of them — but of course, at the time he considered those solutions for which it held as the only physically relevant ones. At any rate, we here see the complete position which would first be presented in the 1921 Princeton lectures: in Newtonian mechanics space acts without being acted upon, while in general relativity it interacts."

For twenty years I have made the same point for quantum theory.

Signal nonlocality happens when the matter beables and their quantum information mental pilot waves obey the very same AR action reaction principle. This opens Pandora's Box.

See Lecture 8 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

Entangled Glauber coherent states seem to violate no signal arguments in quantum theory.

"As we mentioned in section 3.3 above, Norton argued in 1999 that AR was in the back of Einstein’s mind well before 1920, and indeed formed the stimulus of his original Machian tendencies. Here is a further quote from Norton’s study:

This view of the deficiency of earlier theories [their violating the action–reaction principle] and general relativity’s achievement is not one that grew in the wake of Einstein’s disenchantment with Mach’s principle. Rather, it was present even in his earliest writings beneath the concerns for the relative motion of bodies and the observability of causes.78 


Next year the eclipse is supposed to show whether light rays are bent by the sun, whether, in other words, the fundamental assumption of the equivalence between ac- celeration of the frame of reference on the one hand and the gravitational field on the

79Einstein [1913], p.1260-1261.

80It is true that Einstein rejected his own 1912 scalar field theory (mentioned footnote 32 above) when he discovered that it failed to satisfy Newton’s third law of motion concerning action–reaction. But this is a case of the existence of both action and reaction, which happen not to be equal and opposite, thus giving rise to an unacceptable force-free accelerative phenomenon. As we stressed in section 2, AR is not be to be conflated with Newton’s third law, which is a much stronger constraint on the way bodies act on each other. 



Einstein is explicit in regard to the claim that gravitation is an interaction, with the clarification that the interaction is said to be mediated by gμν. The outcome, incidentally, is a revised description of the 1916 thought experiment of the two rotating spheres:

'Mr. Reichenb ̈acher misunderstood my considerations regarding two celestial bodies rotating with respect to one another. One of these bodies is rotating in the sense of Newtonian Mechanics, and thus flattened by centrifugal effects, the other is not. This is what the inhabitants would measure with rigid rods, tell each other about it, and then ask themselves about the real cause of the different behaviour of the celestial bodies. (This has nothing to do with Lorentz contraction.) Newton answered this question by declaring absolute space real, with respect to which one but not the other allegedly rotates. I myself am of the Machian opinion, which in the language of relativity theory can be put in the following way: All masses of the world together determine the gμν- field, which is, judged from the first celestial body, a different one than judged from the second one; for the motion of the masses producing the gμν-field differ significantly. Inertia is, in my opinion, a (mediated) interaction between the masses of the world in the same sense as those effects which in Newtonian theory are considered as gravitational effects.'


To summarise, it seems fair to say that Einstein did not need a variant of the action–reaction principle as a reason to adopt the relativity of inertia in 1913. His strong belief in the equivalence between gravity and inertia, together with his retention of the Newtonian tenet that gravity is an interaction between bodies, could be seen as reason enough.85 Furthermore, it is the pairing of the equivalence principle and the principle of the relativity of inertia, together with the principle of relativity, that Einstein mentions repeatedly up until 1920 as the cornerstones of GR, whereas AR only really takes centre stage in 1920 in the correspondence with Schlick and in subsequent publications. For these reasons, we are inclined to believe that the 1920 correspondence brought out a watershed in Einstein’s thinking, marking an unprecedented shift in Einstein’s interpretation of the superiority of GR over preceding theories of space-time: its superiority now rested on satisfaction of the action–reaction principle, rather than implementation of Mach’s original analysis of inertia.


Einstein’s frequent references to GR’s vindication of the action–reaction principle in the years following his 1921 Princeton lectures have been noted in a number of studies.86 A particularly telling quotation is from a letter Einstein wrote a year before his death to Georg Jaffe:

'You consider the transition to special relativity as the most essential thought of relativity, not the transition to general relativity. I consider the reverse to be correct. I see the most essential thing in the overcoming of the inertial system, a thing which acts upon all processes, but undergoes no reaction. The concept is in principle no better than that of the centre of the universe in Aristotelian physics.87'

For Einstein, the glory of GR rested partly on its alleged superiority to preceding theories of space-time which involve absolute structure. His 1924 essay “On the ether” contains a particularly clear denunciation of Newtonian mechanics in terms of its violation of AR.88 But caution should be exercised when extrapolating backwards, as it were, in the history of physics. It doesn’t automatically follow from the fact that GR satisfies AR, that NM and SR don’t, as we mentioned in section 1 above. To repeat, Einstein was content in his 1905 development of SR to explicitly borrow the inertial frames from NM, without any fretting about the correct metaphysics of action. Of course, if AR is to be respected in these theories, inertia must be taken as a brute fact, a position advocated, in different ways, by Schlick and others, as we have seen. Such a position is surely defensible in the context of these theories. 

The two epigrammatic Einstein quotations cited at the beginning of this essay underscore how Einstein’s thinking changed between 1905 and 1913, and again between 1913 and 1924. In the years 1912 and 1913, when Mach’s influence on him may have been greatest, Einstein had convinced himself that the phenomenon of inertia required a causal explanation, while regarding as absurd the notion of immaterial space acting as such a cause. By 1924, he was stressing that the metric field in GR is as real and efficacious as the electromagnetic field, and in particular could indeed be seen as the origin of inertia. (But it is worth stressing here that Einstein did not view GR as furnishing a geometric explanation of gravitational phenomena; he continued to reject the notion of space, or space-time, as providing the cause of inertia.89)


Nowadays, acceptance of Einstein’s 1924 claim should be seen to rest not simply on the nature of gμν and its geodesics, but rather on the so-called geodesic theorem, which demonstrates that the form of Einstein’s field equations, along, it must be noted, with other plausible universal assumptions about matter fields, imply that the world-lines of test particles are time-like geodesics as defined by the metric field.90 Note that the theorem deals with an idealisation; it states that extended, but truly freely-falling bodies only approximately move inertially.91 In fact, it is a subject worthy of investigation as to whether the details of the theorem are strictly consistent with Einstein’s insistence that a violation of AR holds in theories with absolute space-time structure.92 But such an investigation must be pursued elsewhere. It is our hope that in the present essay, some further light has been shed on the circumstances which led Einstein to bring to the fore the role of the action–reaction principle in his new theory of gravity. 

83Einstein [1920a].

84Einstein [1921] p. 12 see also Vol.7, Doc. 31 CPAE for a similar statement from December 1919 / January 1920. 85Compare Norton [1989b], p. 24: “[I]t was natural for expect that the extended theory, which dealt with general gravitational effects, would explain the observed disposition of inertial frames of reference in terms of the matter distribution of the universe. For the structure that determined this disposition would behave in many aspects like a traditional gravitational field and therefore be strongly influenced by any motion of its sources, the masses of the universe.” 

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Jack <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Max Comess <mcomess@gmail.com> wrote:
[Add more about details relating to stargates (e.g. metrics, exotic matter requirements, etc), why is this approach different from previous wormhole literature? Also, is there a particular experimental approach you suggest pursuing, or any experimental work that has already been done to validate your hypothesis?]

Obviously i will

1)   John Cramer describes Woodward’s core thesis. “Let’s consider the problem of reactionless propulsion first. Woodward extended the work of Sciama in investigating the origins of inertia in the framework of general relativity by consideration of time-dependent effects that occur when energy is in flow while an object is being accelerated. The result is surprising. It predicts large time-dependent variations in inertia, the tendency of matter to resist acceleration.”  This is the local tensor proper acceleration of the rest-massive test particle pushed off a timelike geodesic of the local curvature tensor field caused by real not fictitious forces.  The fictitious forces appear to act on the test particle, but in reality they don’t. They describe real forces on the measuring device observing the test particle. The Levi-Civita connection in the mathematics of general relativity describes the real forces on the observing measuring apparatus not the test object being measured. “The inertial transient effects predicted by the Sciama-Woodward calculations are unusual … in that they have G in the denominator, and dividing by a small number produces a large result.”    John Cramer definitely thinks that James Woodward’s inertial transient data is real “convincing evidence,” although it’s only “tens of micronewton level thrusts delivered to a precision torsion balance.” It’s important to understand that “thrusts” are not weightless warp drives free of time dilation relative to the clock-synchronized external observer left behind. Supposing best-case scenario, that Woodward’s effect is real and can be scaled up by many powers of ten. It’s still no good to get to the stars because of time dilation and the blueshifts of stuff in the way of the front of the starship. It would be good for airplanes and spacecraft on near solar system missions – if it really worked.

Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch

Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Star Ship Engine the way I understand it.
I have reformulated it using Feynman's Rule
What I cannot construct independently
I do not understand

Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...

OK here I agree with Menas.

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

"Agree with Paul.

So now let’s move on.

What is next?"

Jack writes: Glad u asked.

My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE

C = Mach Effect

Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame

F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2

effective "dark energy" potential

V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2

In Einstein's GR this goes into g00

and a nonunitary dissipative friction term

In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0

Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0


C = CDestiny + CHistory

The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82

therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18

In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.

g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)

On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Yes Paul, it is possible to treat inertia, and inertial forces in particular, in GRT just as one does in Newtonian mechanics -- that is, inertia (and its measure, mass-energy) is a primary quality of matter not requiring further explanation. 
Jack: "Inertia", "Inertial" is used in self-contradictory ways, often by the same author in the same paper or text book.

Wheeler & Co seem to use it consistently. In the book "Gravity & Inertia" by the "origin of inertia" they do not mean the rest mass "m" of the observed test particle in Newton's second law F = ma in inertial frames. They mean the pattern of force free geodesics. Note, that in non-inertial frames

F +   Ffictitious = ma'
where  F is the external non-gravity force spacelike 3-vector, a is the proper acceleration 3-vector in the inertial frame. In a rotating non-inertial frame for example in the v/c << 1 limit with rotation 3D pseudo-vector w with apparent velocity v' and radial vector r' in the non-inertial frame.

 Ffictitious ~ -mw x w x r' - 2m w x v' - GMmr'/r^3 - mdw/dt x r'

= 0 in an inertial frame

The apparent acceleration (aka "kinematical") of the test particle in the non-inertial frame is a'

In the formalism of Einstein,  Ffictitious is contained in the Levi-Civita connection term of the covariant derivative.

Case 1 test particle on a geodesic

F = 0, a = 0

Here the fictitious force is really fictitious as far as the test particle m is concerned, though it may be caused be real forces on the detector/observer.

Case 2 test particle is off-geodesic - case of uniform circular motion, with M = 0

Specializing to the now non-inertial co-rotating rest frame of the test particle

F =/= 0, a =/= 0,  dw/dt = 0, a' = 0, v' = 0

All we have left is

F = -mw x w x r'

Where F is the real radially inward non-gravity centripetal force, with an equal and opposite centrifugal force on the source of F.

Case 3  gravitational geodesic orbit - no real force on the test particle.

 -mw x w x r' - 2m w x v' - GMmr'/r^3 - mdw/dt x r' = ma'

m cancels out of the equation.

w and v' are the rotation pseudo-vector of the source mass M and relative velocity of the detector with the test particle of mass m.

The proper acceleration of the test particle a = 0.

Jim: That is why I included Abraham Pais's quote of Einstein on Mach's principle that is the header for Chapter 2 in the book.  But I think you will agree that the discussion of the past year and a half about inertia has been about substantially more than just semantic disagreements.  Unless there is some backsliding, we now seem all to be talking about the same thing, though there is still no agreement on the CAUSE of inertia and inertial "effects" [that is, inertial reaction (third law) forces].

Jack: Jim your above remark is mostly metaphysics not physics. Your remark on the "CAUSE of inertia" is not Popper falsifiable. Again, do you mean "m" or "geodesic pattern"? Probably the former. The cause of Newton's third law is not a mystery. It's mainstream physics Noether's "first" theorem applied to the translation group T3 in an isolated non-dissipative system.
Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The theorem was proved by German mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918.[1] The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function (which may or may not be an integral over space of a Lagrangian density function), from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action.
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion inLagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law. ...
Time invariance
For illustration, consider a Lagrangian that does not depend on time, i.e., that is invariant (symmetric) under changes t → t + δt, without any change in the coordinates q. In this case,N = 1, T = 1 and Q = 0; the corresponding conserved quantity is the total energy H[5]

Translational invariance
Consider a Lagrangian which does not depend on an ("ignorable", as above) coordinate qk; so it is invariant (symmetric) under changes qk → qk + δqk. In that case, N = 1, T = 0, andQk = 1; the conserved quantity is the corresponding momentum pk[6]

In special and general relativity, these apparently separate conservation laws are aspects of a single conservation law, that of the stress–energy tensor,[7] that is derived in the next section.
Rotational invariance
The conservation of the angular momentum L = r × p is analogous to its linear momentum counterpart.[8] It is assumed that the symmetry of the Lagrangian is rotational, i.e., that the Lagrangian does not depend on the absolute orientation of the physical system in space. For concreteness, assume that the Lagrangian does not change under small rotations of an angle δθ about an axis n; such a rotation transforms the Cartesian coordinates by the equation

Since time is not being transformed, T=0. Taking δθ as the ε parameter and the Cartesian coordinates r as the generalized coordinates q, the corresponding Q variables are given by

Then Noether's theorem states that the following quantity is conserved,

In other words, the component of the angular momentum L along the n axis is conserved.
If n is arbitrary, i.e., if the system is insensitive to any rotation, then every component of L is conserved; in short, angular momentum is conserved.



Jim: As far as I am concerned, this is real progress.  I gave up hope of even getting this far a year ago.  That is why my participation in this discussion over the past few months has been minimal. The other part of the issue of inertia, on which I still hold out no hope of getting understanding and agreement, is that we now -- 90 years after Einstein said what was reported by Pais in the mentioned quote -- know a lot more about cosmology.  Indeed, we know that critical cosmic matter density obtains, and accordingly that space is flat at cosmic scale AS MATTERS OF FACT. 
Jack: This is irrelevant it seems to me.

Jim: That means that, as Jack is now calling it, Sciama's "screening factor" -- the coefficient of time derivative of the gravitomagnetic vector potential in the gravielectric field equation (in the approximation where only the g_oo and g_oi potentials need be considered) is one.  And that means that inertial "effects" are accounted for as the gravitational action of chiefly cosmic matter (where "matter" is everything that gravitates).

Jack: Jim, I think your sentences here are very ambiguous.  First of all g00 and g0i are local observer frame-dependent. They are not invariant geometric objects. Also the universe on the large scale is not rotating so g0i = 0 in the usual representations. For example, in the usual comoving observer representation g00 = 1 and g0i = 0, so what happened to your theory here?

General metric for LIF geodesic co-moving observers

The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. It also assumes that the spatial component of the metric can be time-dependent. The generic metric which meets these conditions is

where  ranges over a 3-dimensional space of uniform curvature, that is, elliptical space, Euclidean space, or hyperbolic space. It is normally written as a function of three spatial coordinates, but there are several conventions for doing so, detailed below.  does not depend on t — all of the time dependence is in the function a(t), known as the "scale factor".
[edit]Reduced-circumference polar coordinates
In reduced-circumference polar coordinates the spatial metric has the form

k is a constant representing the curvature of the space. There are two common unit conventions:
k may be taken to have units of length−2, in which case r has units of length and a(t) is unitless. k is then the Gaussian curvature of the space at the time when a(t) = 1. r is sometimes called the reduced circumference because it is equal to the measured circumference of a circle (at that value of r), centered at the origin, divided by 2π (like the r of Schwarzschild coordinates). Where appropriate, a(t) is often chosen to equal 1 in the present cosmological era, so that  measures comoving distance.
Alternatively, k may be taken to belong to the set {−1,0,+1} (for negative, zero, and positive curvature respectively). Then r is unitless and a(t) has units of length. When k = ±1, a(t) is the radius of curvature of the space, and may also be written R(t).
A disadvantage of reduced circumference coordinates is that they cover only half of the 3-sphere in the case of positive curvature—circumferences beyond that point begin to decrease, leading to degeneracy. (This is not a problem if space is elliptical, i.e. a 3-sphere with opposite points identified.)

Jack: Not only that, but our future universe is asympotically de Sitter which in the static LNIF representation is

Static coordinates

We can introduce static coordinates  for de Sitter as follows:

where  gives the standard embedding the (n−2)-sphere in Rn−1. In these coordinates the de Sitter metric takes the form:

Note that there is a cosmological horizon at .

Jack to Jim: Indeed you did not seem to know that g00 = 0 is a condition for a horizon. Note that here g0i = 0.

Jack: Machian Screening Factor?

Analogy to Debye Screening

Debye length
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In plasmas and electrolytes the Debye length (also called Debye radius), named after the Dutch physicist and physical chemist Peter Debye, is the scale over which mobile charge carriers (e.g. electrons) screen out electric fields. In other words, the Debye length is the distance over which significant charge separation can occur. A Debye sphere is a volume whose radius is the Debye length, in which there is a sphere of influence, and outside of which charges are screened. The notion of Debye length plays an important role in plasma physics, electrolytes and colloids (DLVO theory).

For off-geodesic motion F = ma Newton's 2nd law

Jim based on an obscure model of Sciama & Berry? (who denies it in email to me) says

F = ma should be replaced by

F = (cosmological screening factor) ma
Exactly what it is and how to compute it using real Einstein GR as opposed to a completely unjustified EM analogy is not clear to me. I hope it is clear in Jim's book?

Suppose it is really there? Even so, it says nothing about m itself. You can think of m as the cosmologically bare mass of the test particle. m is still determined locally by Higgs field, + QCD + standard nuclear, atomic, molecular, solid state physics of binding energies.

Next step is to look at the Hoyle-Narlikar Wheeler-Feynman theory of gravity.

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Subject: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] On the locality of classical physics, fictitious forces & the nonlocality of gravity energy as a Landauer thermodynamic computation
Date: December 30, 2012 4:00:57 AM PST

On Dec 30, 2012, at 12:41 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:


This conversation has evolved to much the same point as the conversation between Paul, Jack and me a year ago did, and not much has changed.  There's a reason for this.  People don't generally change their minds about things they believe, even in the face of evidence that they ought to.  In Jack's case, he is convinced that all physics is literally local, that distant things and events cannot play a role in how thing occur in our local here and now.

Jack: No Jim what you just said is NOT my belief. You have not understood my writing. I said the classical physics is mostly local, but quantum physics is not. I never said ALL physics is local. I quoted John Archibald Wheeler that "Physics is simple, when it's local." In classical gravity we do have a kind of nonlocality of the energy of the pure gravity field because of the equivalence principle so that is another kind of nonlocality apparently different from quantum nonlocality. In Bohm's ontological quantum interpretation, the quantum potential is both nonlocal and form/context dependent. The violation of Bell's locality inequality proves to my mind that quantum physics is nonlocal - the alternative interpretations are not viable in my opinion. I am also very aware of Wheeler-Feynman's classical electrodynamics, which though retro-causal, is still local in the sense that the back-from-the-future classical advanced EM waves are restricted to the classical light cone.

JW: This belief is widely shared in the physics community, and has been for many, many years.

JS: It's NOT my belief about ALL physics. Rovelli in his free online book Quantum Gravity explains in detail why in CLASSICAL GR we never need Mach's Principle in any real problem.

JW:  It was, for example, Faraday's motivation in creating the field concept.  And while fields, the gravitational field in particular, are thought to act over "astronomical" distances, until the advent of modern cosmology, those distances were not large enough to encompass enough "matter" to make any difference worth mentioning in local circumstances (other than explaining orbital motion up to the galactic level).  This has led Jack to believe that technically "fictitous" forces are literally fictitious. 
JS: The mathematics of elementary mechanics in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force#cite_note-Iro-6 shows that in the case of the observation of a geodesic test particle by a non-inertial observer, there are fictitious pseudo-forces that appear to act on the geodesic test particle that are not felt by the test particle. There are, however, real forces on the non-inertial observer. The test is what accelerometers show. The pointer on a properly working accelerometer is always at the zero. The pointer on the accelerometer clamped to the non-inertial observer is always off zero. Indeed, that is the essence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle - "Einstein's happiest thought".
The happiest thought of my life.
The happiest thought of my life. In 1907, only two years after the publication of his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein wrote a paper attempting to modify ...
general relativity - Einstein's "happiest thought" - Physics
Aug 10, 2011 – Einstein described his discovery of the equivalence principle as the "happiest thought of my life". Why? What, in broad conceptual terms, is the ...
The Equivalence Principle | Suite101
Feb 3, 2008 – Einstein's “Happiest Thought”. The answer is that these two phenomenon – gravitational and inertial mass – are not just too different things ...
How Did Einstein Think?
Nov 15, 2007 – Its first phase was devoted to systematic constructions that derived directly from Einstein's "happiest thought." In it, acceleration produced a ...
Einstein's Third Paradise, by Gerald Holton
It contains the passage in which Einstein revealed what in his words was "the happiest thought of my life" [der gluecklichste Gedanke meines Lebens] – a ...
[PPT] Einstein's Happiest Thought
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick View
Einstein's Happiest Thought. Micro-world Macro-World Lecture 7. Equivalence between gravity & acceleration. a. Man in a closed box on Earth. Man in a closed ...

In contrast, in the totally different total experimental arrangement when the test particle is constrained by real electromagnetic-weak-gravity forces, then what is a fictitious centripetal force mw x (w x r), for example, in the geodesic test particle, shows up as the effect of a real local contact force pushing the test particle off geodesic. For example, in the cyclotron in an inertial frame

Newton's 2nd law F = ma in the inertial frame is

e v x B/c = mw x (w x r)

i.e. a radially inward centripetal effect of the real magnetic Lorentz force.

v = w x r

when B is uniform and constant over all parts of the test particle's off-geodesic worldline.

therefore, the cyclotron frequency is

w = eB/mc

the orbit radius r is computed from

r = veB/w^2mc = v(eB/mc)/(eB/mc)^2 = mvc/eB = v/w

i.e. the bigger the linear momentum of the test particle, the bigger the orbit, the bigger the magnetic field the smaller the orbit.

A force that is fictitious for a geodesic test particle can re-appear in the same form as the effect whose cause is a real local contact force pushing that same test particle off-geodesic.

Newton's third law is always obeyed locally by EM-weak-strong gauge forces. In the cyclotron case, for example, the test charge pushes back with an equal but opposite radially outward centrifugal - m w x (w x r) electrical contact back-reaction force on the magnetic flux field.
My other point is that the inertial = gravitational masses m (active and passive) are free parameters in classical Einstein GR and Mach's Principle can't compute them. If you deny that, then compute the electron mass for us using Mach's Principle. No, you need Quantum Chromodynamics to compute hadron masses from the rest masses of quarks. The rest masses of leptons and quarks from the Higgs vacuum field are still basically free parameters leading to the controversial multiverse cosmic landscape conjecture.

Amazon.com: The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion ...
www.amazon.com › ... › Physics › Mathematical Physics
Starred Review. As modern physics has developed a better understanding of how the universe operates at its most fundamental levels, one thing has become ...
The Cosmic Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cosmic Landscape is a non-fiction popular science book on the Anthropic principle and String theory landscape. It is written by theoretical physicist Leonard ...
The Cosmic Landscape | Not Even Wrong
Dec 7, 2005 – Susskind's new book, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design is now out. It's basically a lengthy version for ...
The Cosmic Landscape - The New York Times
Jan 15, 2006 – A founder of string theory explains the idea that our universe is just one among many, and explores its implications.

JW: And what cannot be attributed to mainstream classical physics and run of the mill quantum theory gets laid off on the supposedly magical properties of the quantum vacuum -- this notwithstanding that the vacuum is measured to be empty.  A lot of people believe this too.  Perhap even you?

What century are you in Jim? The is the 21st Century and you seem to be stuck in the 19th.  There is lots of direct evidence for the reality of random incoherent virtual particles in the quantum vacuum as radiative corrections, e.g. Lamb shift. Also near fields are coherent Glauber states of virtual quanta beyond the one random zero point quantum per field oscillator of the Casimir force etc.

Search Results
[PDF] Radiative Corrections in Quantum Field Theory - Nikhef
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Radiative Corrections in Quantum Field Theory. Martinus Veltman 80th birthday. J. Iliopoulos. Amsterdam, June 24, 2011. – p. 1/47 ...
[PDF] Calculating Radiative Corrections - SUSY 10
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Aug 21, 2010 – this is about calculating radiative corrections not looking at radiative corrections. • no plots (with one exception). • no motivational blah blah (if ...
Radiative Correction - Encyclopedia - The Free Dictionary
The change produced in the value of some physical quantity, such as the mass or charge of a particle, as the result of the particle's interactions with various ...
Oblique correction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In particle physics, an oblique correction refers to a particular type of radiative correction to the electroweak sector of the Standard Model. Oblique corrections ...
Radiative Corrections to Electron Scattering - APS Link Manager
by RG Newton - 1955 - Cited by 9 - Related articles
mation of the one-photon radiative corrections to the scattering of electrons by nuclei. Nonrelativistic and high-energy approximations are calculated explicitly for ...
Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry ...
by S Coleman - 1973 - Cited by 3326 - Related articles
(Received 8 November 1972). We investigate the possibility that radiative correctionsmay produce spontaneous symmetry breakdown in theories for which the ...
Radiative Corrections to the Ground-State Energy of - APS Link ...
by PK Kabir - 1957 - Cited by 183 - Related articles
to be —1.26&0.2 cm ', where the error includes an estimation of the Zn' terms which are not calculated. The corresponding radiative corrections are calculated, ...
Radiative corrections to the atomic photoeffect - APS Link Manager
by J McEnnan - 1977 - Cited by 20 - Related articles
The radiative corrections to the photoeffect are evaluated for the K-shell of ...transfer), the radiative corrections tend to reduce the photoeffect differential cross ...
Radiative Corrections Helpdesk
May 12, 2004 – This page is designed to help JLab users deal with the issue ofradiative corrections in inclusive, semi-exclusive and exclusive electron ...
[PDF] Radiative Corrections to Compton Scattering
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by LM Brown - 1952 - Cited by 251 - Related articles
the radiative corrections requires a knowledge of the double Compton cross section, we have computed this also, for the case that one of the emitted photons ...
Searches related to radiative corrections
radiative corrections higgs mass
radiative corrections wiki
1    2

JW: Paul, I suspect, shares much of Jack's core beliefs.  But he is also a follower of Hans Ohanian (and formerly, Husein Yilmaz).  Ohanian believes, if memory serves, that the Equivalence Principle is actually wrong

JS: Yes, that is what's wrong with all of Z's "original" work in the foundations of GR in my opinion. But I think Jim that's also true of your Sciama Machian theory.

JW: -- because tidal effects supposedly make it possible to discriminate gravity from accelerated reference frames.

JS: Of course that is hogwash based on a misunderstanding of Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP). All Einstein said was that special relativity works locally. Einstein never said that the curvature tensor must vanish locally. That is a RED HERRING. The actual equation is

Ruvwl(LNIF) = eu^Iev^Jew^Kel^LRIJKL(LIF) & its inverse

where the e's are the 16 tetrad components connecting COINCIDENT geodesic/non-rotating LIFS with off-geodesic and/or rotating LNIFs.

It's the Newtonian fictitious inertial pseudo-force represented by the torsion-free symmetric Levi-Civita connection {uvw}LNIF that is zero in the coincident LIF.

JW: This confers and "objective" status on the gravitational field that it does not have in standard general relativity.  The motives of those who hold this belief are complicated and not necessarily universally shared in this community.

JS: In my opinion it's crank pseudo-physics to hold that opinion based on a mis-understanding of Einstein's idea.

JW: I'm not sure why Paul in particular is motivated to believe in this "objectification" of gravity.  But whatever that motivation may be, it does lead him to the correct inference that gravitational and inertial forces are physically fundamentally different from truly fictitious forces -- Coriolis forces in particular.

JS: Your sentence here Jim is "not even wrong" in Wolfgang Pauli's sense in my opinion because, as I showed a jillion times now you simply muddle the geodesic test particle seen from an accelerating non-inertial frame with the off-geodesic test particle case seen from an inertial frame. Indeed, your view violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle as much as Z's does in the end.

JW: While Paul is willing to confer real physical status (that is, in his words, dynamical) on inertial forces, he is not willing it seems to entertain the possibility that inertial forces are really just gravitational forces produced by the chiefly most distant "matter" in the universe.

JS: There is no such thing as a real gravity force in Einstein's GR as there is in Newton's gravity theory. Therefore what you say here is nonsense from muddling the two different paradigms Einstein's and Newton's. What about gravity collapse you might say? Imagine a gas of particles all on geodesics falling into a proto-star. When these geodesic particles collide with each other the electromagnetic-weak-strong forces take over and the particles are mutually pushed off their initial geodesics.  The gas heats up from the EM-weak-strong interaction collisions and the nonlocal energy of the gravity field from the less random kinetic energy of the geodesic particles is converted to more random local heat increasing the thermodynamic entropy. Note that when you walk uphill the work done is actually from electrical contact forces. Your original world line is off-geodesic and remains so in the entire process. When you fall off the cliff you transit from an off-geodesic world line to an intermediate geodesic world line but end up an another off-geodesic, so again just like the formation of the proto-star to a hot star the nonlocal low entropy energy of the gravity field is transformed into higher entropy heat energy. If you are in a parachute, then you are no longer on a geodesic in the descent. Admittedly how this nonlocal energy of the gravity field is converted into local energy of the matter field is not intuitively obvious. In the case of an adiabatic process for a sequence of static LNIFs

g00  = 1 - 2GM/c^2r ---->  g'00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r'
for example. In Newtonian terms, the difference in LOCAL gravity potential energy is

GM/r - GM/r' = (c^2/2)GM(1/r - 1/r') now this is supposed to be the the path independent line integral of F.dx where F is a real force, and so it is, but it's not the gravity force at all, its the electric force of constraint that adiabatically changes to maintain the sequence of static LNIFs. Next question is what happens when the process is not adiabatic. Looking at the test particle motion'

Dp^u/ds = F^u

p^u is the 4-momentum of the test particle

F^u is the EM-weak-strong real force on the test particle

D/ds is the covariant proper time derivative along the world line of the test particle which in off-geodesic parts of the worldline of the process has non-zero Levi-Civita connection.

Dp^u/ds = dp^u/ds + {^uvw}p^vp^w/m



indeed there is an analogy here with computation, that the entropy only increases in the erasure of information
Landauer's Principle, first argued in 1961[1] by Rolf Landauer of IBM, is a physical principle pertaining to the lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of a computation. It holds that "any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase in non-information bearing degrees of freedom of the information processing apparatus or its environment". (Bennett 2003)[2]

JW: It has been obvious, even from the time of Newton, that inertia is correlated to the distant stuff in the observable cosmos. 

JS: This is nonsense. It's not obvious. It's simply muddled sloppy thinking based on primitive magical astrology. Particles are the same every where. Not only that, but 96 % of the gravitating stuff of the universe is not in the form of real particles at all! Most of the stuff is virtual particles!

JW: Before the 1920s, that meant, in Mach's turn of phrase, "the fixed stars".  Inertial frames of reference do not rotate with respect to the "fixed stars".

JS: We now know that to be nonsense. Rovelli explains this quite well in detail. But basically, the local gravity near fields, and more specifically their patterns of geodesics,  are determined by matter Tuv sources inside their past light cones - and possibly future light cones from Wheeler-Feynman Hoyle-Narlikar effect as in Tamara Davis's modified conformal diagram

Since the universe is expanding and indeed now accelerating for past few billion years there is an obvious asymmetry between past and future influences in the here-now that Sciama's 1950's quaint model that Jim relies on did not even conceive of.

JW: The obvious inference is that the "fixed stars" somehow determine local inertial frames of reference. 
JS: This is numbo-jumbo mystification Jim. Basically there is, in the conventional view a retarded Green's function G(x,x') that takes the Tuv(x') source distribution in the past light cone of the field point here-now and ROUGHLY SPEAKING the integral of G(x,x)Tuv(x')d^4x' gives the guv(x) metric field locally. Rotation is defined relative to that local guv(x) metric field from the collective influence of all the stuff in its past light cone out to the past particle horizon. This is prior to Wheeler-Feynman modifications from our future de Sitter event horizon.

JW: I am not going to rehash the arguments over this -- Mach's principle as Einstein called it.  I will point out that exactly the opposite of what Jack claims has taken place in the last 15 or 20 years.  "Precision" cosmology has shown the universe to be spatially flat at cosmic scale, and that means that "critical" cosmic matter density is present, and that in turn means that gravitational actions do indeed account for inertial effects.

JS: This a complete RED HERRING. That the universe is spatially flat does not contradict anything I have said. Jim is making a purely polemical bogus hand-waving argument here. Indeed, I am just giving here the standard text book view that gives as one possible solution the spatially flat k = 0 FRW metric on a large scale that with the positive cosmological constant / gives the acceleration for the past few billion years.

JW: Likely, this would be universally acknowledged were it not for the fact that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous -- and the only way to account for this fact without violating the principle of relativity is with a Wheeler-Feynman "action-at-a-distance" formulation of gravitation.

JS: In EM the Wheeler-Feynman radiation reaction is proportional to D^3X^u/ds^2 for the test particle. Now Jim claims he gets the analogous radiation reaction term for gravity to be D^2X^u/ds^2. I have yet to see how this allegation works in detail.  Jim seems to claim that the ma term in Newton's second law of motion

F = ma for OFF-GEODESIC motion

where F is a non-gravity force, comes from the future light cone. Suppose it did somehow, that still does not determine what numbers to sick into m for the different elementary particles.

Furthermore, there are no gravity radiation waves of any significance - no one has detected them directly locally, and if and when they do they will be so weak that they cannot explain the NEAR GRAVITY field as in
g00 = 1 - 2GMEarth/c^2r

Indeed, there is no coherent narrative in what Jim is saying that I can see at this moment.

JW: This type of formulation, by the way, is well-known to apply to electrodynamics.  And John Cramer has shown that it can be used to "interpret" quantum mechanics which has seemingly instantaneous "entanglement" interactions.  So, we're not talking completely off the wall physics here.

JS: You have not connected John Cramer's mathematics with your mathematics - maybe you do in your book? Cramer is talking about quantum BIT PILOT waves which have very different properties than classical matter field waves. This distinction is clear in Bohm's formulation of the quantum potential Q. Entangled quantum waves have their domains in PHASE SPACE using the Wigner density and their range in Hilbert space - very different from local EM waves. Indeed, the superquantum potential of the classical electromagnetic and gravity fields are infinite dimensional in Hilbert space - one dimension for each point of the spacetime continuum. In fact for gravity we have to go into a higher level of numbering Wheeler's many-fingered super-space where each point is an entire spacelike 3-Geometry. So it's not at all clear if Cramer's picture based on primitive particle mechanics only can even deal with gravity. It's not clear it can deal with even the Dirac spinor fields. Wheeler and Feynman tried to get rid of the EM field using direct light cone limited particles only. They had to give up on that and modern quantum field theory gives independent existence to the spin 1 boson gauge fields. Indeed, supersymmetry and string theory demand it - though they are still not established empirically. That may change soon in the LHC.

JW: In the last analysis, notwithstanding that the roles of theory and experiment are no longer what they were even 100 years ago, experiment is the final arbiter of what's real and what isn't.  While looking for a way to get around spacetime quickly, I've blundered onto some effects that are predicted by Mach's principle -- effects that are otherwise not expected.  So, should those prove real, the Machian view should eventually prevail -- and maybe we'll be able to get around spacetime quickly.

JS: Your effects so far are marginal and probably systematic errors like the short-lived superluminal neutrino. JW: That brings me to the weekly update.  The lesson of the last year or two, and especially the last month or two, is that the behavior of the PZT stacks presently in use can be very irritatingly cranky.  The production of thrust effects depends on getting things to work correctly that, in an ideal world, would take care of themselves automatically.  You know about the marginal performance eeked out of the system of a few weeks ago.  After that, I took the device that had been run into the ground with a single frequency driving signal and tried running it with a dual frequency signal.  For mundane technical reasons, in this system that means a smaller effect, if any, from the earlier work.  Smaller signals of the sort expected were obtained.

The signals in the attached PPT file (which also has some pictures of lab upgrades), however, are with the single frequency signals and a different device of the same design that has not yet been run into the ground.  And most recently, the run into the ground device has been mounted with a new mount for testing of that arrangement.  I won't bore you with the technical details.  Suffice it to say that finding improved, more reliable materials has risen to the top of the priority list.  Discussions like that you've endured the past week or so may be diverting.  They won't get starships built.  Only real hardware that can be made to work reliably has any chance at all of getting that done.  So work in the lab goes on. . . .

May you all have a very enjoyable New Year's holiday,


indian porn sexnxxx.cc xvideos Amateur Porn video porno amatoriali filmeporno.top lupoporno film porno gratuit porno mature xnxx film porno gratuit
bisexuel gay porno gay porno देसी सेक्स एचडी पॉर्न ऊपर ऊपर से चुदाई Големи цици